corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 20327

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Fuhrer MJ, Grabois M.
Information sources that influence physiatrists' adoption of new clinical practices.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69:(3):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3348713


Abstract:

As part of a mail survey of physiatrists’ views of conducting research, respondents were queried regarding information sources that influenced their introducing a clinical innovation into their practices in the past two years. Complete information was obtained from 356 individuals. The reported practice innovations were categorized as follows: (a) evoked potentials (6% of respondents); (b) electrophysiologic diagnostic procedures other than evoked potentials (19%); © other diagnostic/assessment procedures (11%); (d) transcutaneous nerve stimulation (6%); (e) physical treatment procedures other than transcutaneous nerve stimulation (22%); (f) medication (5%); (g) psychologic or social intervention (4%); and (h) altered methods of service delivery (27%). Considered across all practice innovation categories, the average relative importance (in descending order) of the information sources was as follows: (1) discovery in the individual’s own practice; (2) a meeting, lecture, or continuing education course; (3) a clinical coworker; (4) a write-up in the clinical literature; (5) the individual’s own research; (6) a patient; (7) a write-up in the research literature; (8) a textbook; and (9) the representative of a drug firm or equipment manufacturer. Additional findings concern variables which distinguished a group of 43 individuals who reported introducing no innovation into their practices for the preceding two years, compared to the 356 individuals who did so.

Keywords:
Communication* Diffusion of Innovation* Humans Information Services* Physical Medicine/trends* Questionnaires United States

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.